In anti-discrimination law, what does 'disparate impact' describe?

• A. A policy that intentionally targets a protected class
• B. A neutral policy that disproportionately harms a protected class
• C. A policy that benefits protected classes
• D. A policy that has no relation to protected classes

Answer: (B)

Disparate impact describes a policy that is neutral on its face yet produces a disproportionate adverse effect on a protected class. It looks at outcomes rather than motives: you don’t need to show someone intended to discriminate, just that the policy’s application harms a protected group more than others. This is why a facially neutral hiring test or screening requirement that yields significantly higher rejection rates for a protected class can be challenged as having disparate impact. If such a disparity is shown, the policy-maker can justify it as job-related and consistent with business necessity or show there are less discriminatory alternatives. The other descriptions don’t fit because intentional targeting describes disparate treatment, policies that benefit protected classes aren’t what disparate impact addresses, and a policy with no relation to protected classes isn’t about discrimination at all.